Iman Yassin Hamed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1012
The applicant sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds as a de facto family member of her cousin, who had raised her like a daughter. A migration officer refused the application, finding the applicant was not a de facto family member.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled the officer failed to assess the relationship holistically, drew unsupported adverse inferences, and speculated about other support options without evidence.
Kandahari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1008
An Afghan national applying for permanent residence was refused after an officer found his interview answers contradictory and untruthful. The interview was conducted with a Dari-speaking interpreter, while the applicant's native language is Pashto, leading to significant communication issues.
The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding a clear breach of procedural fairness. The court held that the language mismatch resulted in consequential, mistranslated answers that unfairly impacted the officer's negative credibility finding, and ordered a new decision by a different officer.
Bamidele v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 999
The applicant, a bisexual woman from Nigeria, sought refugee protection based on persecution due to her sexuality. Her claim was refused by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) due to significant inconsistencies in her evidence regarding her family, relationships, and key events.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's negative credibility assessment was reasonable. The Court affirmed that inconsistencies, even about seemingly peripheral details like family composition, can justifiably undermine an applicant's entire claim.
Xianbao Ou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1002
A permanent resident, convicted for large-scale illegal cannabis cultivation with 10 co-accused, was found inadmissible for membership in a criminal organization. He challenged this finding, arguing the group lacked the formal structure of an 'organization'.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the Immigration Division's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that a group can be a 'criminal organization' under immigration law even if it is 'loosely organized' without a clear hierarchy.
Selcuk v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1000
The applicant, a Kurdish national from Türkiye, had his asylum claim refused via a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The IRCC officer denied the claim, stating there was insufficient evidence and criticizing the lack of 'exact' dates, details, and corroborating documents for his political activities.
The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable and granted the judicial review. The Court held that an officer cannot hyper-focus on perceived weaknesses and a lack of minor details while failing to meaningfully analyze the central issue: the applicant's forward-looking risk of persecution.
Mwangi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1003
The applicant, a self-represented woman from Kenya, sought refugee protection based on her sexual orientation. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected her claim, deeming it “manifestly unfounded” due to adverse credibility findings and declaring her police reports fraudulent, which resulted in her removal from Canada.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RPD's decision was both unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The Court held that the RPD misapplied the SOGIE Guidelines, unreasonably dismissed key evidence, and breached its duty of fairness by not giving the applicant a chance to address its credibility concerns before making a severe finding.
Ocampo Alarcon v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 996
An asylum seeker's refugee claim was deemed ineligible under the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA). A CBSA officer disbelieved her claim to have a common-law partner in Canada, which would exempt her, and refused to reconsider new evidence supporting the relationship.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the CBSA officer's decision unreasonable. The Court condemned the officer for selectively reconsidering only the part of the decision that was unfavorable to the applicant while refusing to review new evidence that could have helped her.
Roghangar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 987
An Iranian national applied for a writ of mandamus to compel IRCC to decide his study permit application, which had been pending for over three and a half years due to a security assessment triggered by his mandatory military service.
The Federal Court granted the mandamus order, compelling IRCC to issue a decision within 45 days. The Court found the delay was prima facie unreasonable and IRCC failed to provide any specific evidence to justify it, relying instead on insufficient 'blanket statements' about security screenings.
Zewide v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 986
The applicant, a protected person found inadmissible for past actions in Ethiopia as a youth, sought an exemption on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. The officer refused, concluding the positive H&C factors did not outweigh the inadmissibility, mischaracterizing the applicant's arguments about his past.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer made critical errors by engaging in speculation about future citizenship and by seriously mischaracterizing the applicant's submissions regarding his past involvement with a repressive regime.
Zanivan v. Attorney General of Canada, 2026 FC 989
An applicant sought judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) decision that found her ineligible for CRB Act benefits. The officer denied the benefits based on adverse inferences drawn from an income adjustment and her employment history, without ever raising these specific concerns with her.
The Federal Court allowed the application, finding a clear breach of procedural fairness. The Court ruled that by not raising the specific concerns that led to the refusal, the officer denied the applicant the opportunity to understand and respond to the case against her.
